gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

[GRG55]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Pre-ordained and active choice are NOT mutually exclusive. Just because the outcome IS known in God's frame of reference (see Einstein's theory of relativity) does not mean that WE CAN KNOW the outcome in OUR frame of reference, THEREFORE, Active choice is required in OUR FRAME of reference. (Unless one wishes to commit blasphemy by placing oneself on an equal pedestal with God). What a lot of Muslims in the middle east fail to understand about this concept is that THEY ARE COMMITTING A SIN by PRESUMING to know what ONLY God can know.

Basically, YES, God knows the outcome your life in advance, BUT YOU DON'T!!

Active choice forces us to shape our own destiny. To us it appears to be free will and IT IS, in OUR FRAME of reference. But to GOD, in HIS frame of reference, your life appears as the manifestation of a preordained path set forth by him.

Failing to ACTIVELY CHOOSE is a SIN! BECAUSE you are trying to circumvent God's will BY PRETENDING TO KNOW GOD's WILL! (God's will is but known to God)

Many Muslims around the world think that failing to make active choices in their lives is the highest proclamation of fealty to God (Iman) when in fact the opposite is true! (It is the worst form of Kufr).

I just wish more people understood this.

Insha'Allah, they will.

Insha'Allah.

Thanks for the insight!

[c1ue]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

It's all correct C1ue. You can check with anyone. It's ALL CORRECT.

I'm checking with you.

You've made a series of assertions on a path out which I do not agree with; in previous such conversations the source turned out to be a publication from the military.

Is this a similar situation?

[GRG55]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

...Isn't it possible that our "can do" attitude just replaced the old "god's will" attitude? That both have elements of reliance on pre-ordained results? That is, one view is overconfidence in god, the other view is overconfidence in man's innovation...

...

That is an interesting observation!

My peers include a good number of petroleum engineers. Although none of us had anything directly to do with the BP well blowout it has been nonetheless a humbling experience for most of us. The technology that we, as engineers, developed and rely on, failed. And failed miserably. Although every one of us knows a great deal about the methods and risks involved in drilling for petroleum, and every one of us knows that there is a possibility of a well failure or blowout, it is still something that we think we can avoid every time we spud [start to drill] a new well. Is that hubris? Is that overconfidence in our ingenuity? Perhaps.

Nevertheless, I continue to have [over?]confidence that the people working on this problem will ultimately prevail and the well will be killed and capped in due course. And I still think that confidence will prove correct.

[jk]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

It's time to be conservative with the resources of the world. We really don't know if the transition will be a smooth one, and thus a two pronged attack - innovation and conservation are needed. And vigilance, not hubris will be needed.

Neither of us have a predictable timeline of how this plays out. When I lack information, I take the cautious view. I think most are not cautious, and they believe that we'll pull a rabbit out of a hat just in time. That's the basis of my concern.

i think you are correct when you say that most people assume there will be a just-in-time technological miracle to solve the peak cheap oil problem. and i, too, am skeptical. unfortunately, it appears that only punishingly high prices will get people to conserve. that's why i have 18% of my assets in energy and 6% in energy-dependent agriculture. and why i installed a geothermal heating/cooling system to get off oil.

[we_are_toast]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Actually if oil depletion were not an apparent reality, would the world right now be much different with regard to the problems that exist with unemployment, over-indebtedness and looming either deflation or inflation?

This particular crises may have been loosely connected (possibly triggered) by oil prices. But the impacts of the crises would be much less (as jk indicates) if gas were $.75/gal rather than $2.60, and you can be assured conditions would be worse if gas were $7.00/gal. I think the biggest impact of the oil depletion will be our ability to recover.

Cheap energy is the main reason the western world could maintain and improve the standard of living it has had since the industrial revolution. Peak Cheap energy should have occurred many decades ago, but the extremely unequal distribution of energy has allowed some of the world to have Cheap energy at the expense of most of the rest of the world. Those days are over.

The transferring of much wealth from the developed nations to the undeveloped nations is allowing many more in the world to become part of the demand side for fossil fuel energy sources at a time when the technical ability to extract those resources is approaching its peak and the costs of accessing these diminishing resources is rising rapidly.

Our ability to recover from previous depressions and recessions was somewhat dependent on having the cheap energy to recover and grow energy intensive industries or provide large energy intensive infrastructure projects. One might argue that the recovery from recent recessions was only possible by leaving a larger and larger segment of the population out of the recovery. By reducing the ability of some people to be part of the demand equation, we're able to hold down the costs for others. Due to the Peak Cheap Oil situation we now face, I'd venture to say that any recovery will be far more unequal than ever before. A large segment of the population will have to endure a large decline in standard of living so the oil price increase can be held down enough to preserve the standard of living of others. I think that pretty much defines what a 3rd world country is.

[gnk]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

i think you are correct when you say that most people assume there will be a just-in-time technological miracle to solve the peak cheap oil problem. and i, too, am skeptical. unfortunately, it appears that only punishingly high prices will get people to conserve. that's why i have 18% of my assets in energy and 6% in energy-dependent agriculture. and why i installed a geothermal heating/cooling system to get off oil.

Maybe conservation won't be a choice we make, but others make for us:

Saudi King Stops Oil Exploration, News Agency Reports

By Mourad Haroutunian

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia has stopped exploring for oil to protect the interests of future generations, the Saudi News Agency reported, citing King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz.
The monarch told Saudi scholars studying in Washington that he had ordered that all prospecting for oil to cease “in order to keep the earth’s wealth for our sons and grandsons”, the Riyadh-based agency said.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...d=adq82_oLIjjI

Is this an econo-political ploy, or does Saudi Arabia, with unaudited fields, have something to hide? Time will tell.

updated news source with more info:

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZW...0Save%20Wealth

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand your question.

I made a proposal on the optimal structure of the US economy. I argue that it is Optimal, and that no matter who you check with, whomever the authority, they would agree that it is optimal as well. (Political constraints not withstanding, of course)


This is my concept on how one would, if given a "do-over", optimally restructure the entire US economy (and also how world trade is settled between countries).

I am ARGUING that the market will literally FORCE this optimal structure upon us. And, that if we know this is ABSOLUTELY UNAVOIDABLE (at best we can merely delay the process), our best course of action is to be an early adopter (as in the FIRST Adopter). Because, being the first adopter involves the LEAST PAIN AND the MOST GAIN. The longer we wait, the MORE PAIN we will go through. Understand that we will simultaneously, realize exponentially fewer "gains" but incur exponentially greater "pains" the longer that we delay.


Early adopters Triumph, Late adopters serve at the mercy of the early adopters OR PERISH.

Take your pick, Early adopter or Late adopter, but that is the ONLY choice you get to make. That the market will Evolve to this structure is, well, preordained (in the Nash Equilibrium sense). We may not agree with it, but it's coming, no matter what.

Disclaimer: this is my idea, my concept alone! (obviously a whole lot of other people's work would need to be cited but you get the drift).

When I said WE (as in we the US) are going to do this, what I MEANT is that the market will FORCE IT UPON us. It is UNAVOIDABLE! That is precisely ALL that I meant to say. If you understood something other than this, I apologize for my lack of clarity and precision.

The BEST we can possible do in such a situation is to be THE First Adopter. We realize the MAXIMUM gain, AND we MINIMIZE the pain. It is a win-win but most importantly it is THE BEST that we can do. You CAN'T DO any better, but you can MOST CERTAINLY DO WORSE. The outcome will be far, FAR worse the longer we wait. We WILL have pain as the first adopter, BUT it will be infinitesimally SMALL in comparison to the pain that we would experience through the continued delay tactic of "extend and pretend".

Does that make sense, C1ue?

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Thanks!

It's open now mega

[Starving Steve]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

My 2cents is that alternative energy (other than atomic power) is a complete joke from the pot-heads. Let me continue: I was in a state-of-the-technology solar home not far from my home this past week, and after a rare cloud-free day on Vancouver Island, the 360-degree exposed solar house was getting cold at 9:00 PM, with the sun still up. The reason was just as I had suspected, the heat gained during the day and stored in the stone floor was being lost to the -40C sky during sunset. The same thing happens to my brother's house in Watsonville, California; i.e, whatever heat that is gained during the day and stored in the stone floor is radiated-out during the night to the -40C (-40F) sky.

I interupted the pro-solar group-think in my neighbour's solar home by asking: Where is your TV? Where is your clothes dryer? The answer was that the off-the-grid solar home had no such appliances. I then asked: How do you heat the home at night in summer, not to mention in winter? And the answer was that they burned wood in the house to keep the house warm.

"How do you get through the long darkness of winter and its power requirements?" I asked. The answer was that they used a diesel-powered generator for power, located outside the house for winter. So the bottomline in this state-of-the-technology solar home was that to keep the battery-back-up to the solar system charged, diesel fuel had to be burned. Also, wood had to be burned in their wood-stove.

I looked at the home's computer assist to monitor energy use. The computer-assist read, "90% charge in the battery storage unit." But this was after a rare sunny day on Vancouver Island and a day in which no-one was in the house drawing power until 6PM.

Needless to say, these critical but quite important questions made me rather unpopular in the solar home, at least among the solar power, alt-E group-thinkers there. So I left their party early and went home.

Fair to say though, perhaps a windmill in this 360-degree exposed home-site might have paid handsome energy dividends because the wind blew constantly at this home's very exposed site. But the cost of a windmill and solar system working in combination, together with back-up diesel generator would have been exorbitant.

And people wonder why I consider solar and wind, "pot-head solutions" to a very serious energy-cost problem confronting Europe and North America to-day!

One of my pro-solar group-think neighbours pointed-out to me that he was in this solar home in the winter with twenty-eight people at a gathering, and they all were warm. I replied, "The anthropogenic heat from 28 people would easily warm any house in winter, regardless of its design." Needless to say, my remark made me quite unpopular with my some of my neighbours who were pro-solar.

[we_are_toast]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

I interupted the pro-solar group-think in my neighbour's solar home by asking: Where is your TV? Where is your clothes dryer? ...
I then asked: How do you heat the home at night in summer, not to mention in winter? ...

"How do you get through the long darkness of winter and its power requirements?" I asked. ...

Needless to say, these critical but quite important questions made me rather unpopular in the solar home, at least among the solar power, alt-E group-thinkers there. So I left their party early and went home.

After you finished insulting your hosts about their home, did you let them know they were a bunch of tree-hugging, Sierra clubber, know nothing, pot-heads?

Maybe you ought to spend a little less time concerned about energy, and a little more concerned about manners.

[Starving Steve]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

One of the things I most admire about Joseph Stalin was that he was rude, obtuse, and even crude. He cut to the core of the problem of winning WWII and did not putz-around with manners, political correctness, feelings, nor common decency. For Stalin, the ends justified the means. Under Stalin, appeasers of the nazis were shot after a quick show-trial.

Much of the world is in a pickle, just like we were in WWII, and this is a war against an enemy just as serious and just as devilish as the nazis were in WWII. We have to win this war against terrorists and liberate ourselves from the addiction of buying their oil. That might mean we have to sacrafice some bird habitat and step on some toes in this struggle. We just might have to re-think our economics too, because deficits can not be allowed to grow forever.

[flintlock]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

You're taking my argument to a far extreme - I'm not being a defeatist. And our lives are far from being pre-ordained.

What I am saying, is that people have this over-reliance and overconfidence on mankind's ingenuity, and as as result, overconsume nonrenewables. I'm not saying we give up and go to the beach.

I'm saying it's entirely possible that we continue to innovate, yet be wiser stewards of the resources we find. I don't believe those two goals are conflicting. The transition from oil needs innovation AND conservation to make the transition smoother - or as smooth as we can possibly make it.

Isn't it possible that our "can do" attitude just replaced the old "god's will" attitude? That both have elements of reliance on pre-ordained results? That is, one view is overconfidence in god, the other view is overconfidence in man's innovation.

It's time to be conservative with the resources of the world. We really don't know if the transition will be a smooth one, and thus a two pronged attack - innovation and conservation are needed. And vigilance, not hubris will be needed.

Neither of us have a predictable timeline of how this plays out. When I lack information, I take the cautious view. I think most are not cautious, and they believe that we'll pull a rabbit out of a hat just in time. That's the basis of my concern.

Agree completely. We've become so used to amazing technology that we now expect it to get us out of any bad position we put ourselves in. The word "foolish" comes to mind. One thing for sure, caution and modesty are not in style these days.

[flintlock]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Steve you wouldn't have lasted five minutes living under Stalin.

[jtabeb]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

"I don't see how equity loans fix the problem. Debt loans worked for centuries - what screwed it up was removing the bank's penalty for making a bad loan both via TBTF support (later) and via securitization (first). Conversely removing both of these constructs seems an obvious fix."

Sure, but you'd need a modern day Midas Mulligan to do this. You know any bankers that poses this level of character in today's day and age?

"I disagree completely. The entire problem with Proposition 13 and its brethren is that you inherently distort the housing market via the cash flow subsidies that accrue over time.

These subsidies are a significant factor in driving up housing prices. "

Yeah, BUT, BUT BUT! Inflation in assets has exceeded wage inflation. SO a confiscatory situation arises for any home owner that lives in a single house for a long time (as I myself hope to do one day). I agree that it is a distortion, but that by limiting the distortion to a SINGLE Owner-occupied residence per family, not per person. You AVOID the confiscatory seizure of property through taxation for regular folks AND because the tax is INDEXED at the sale then the distortion is corrected. We want STABLE neighborhoods, this is the cost of doing that. Remember, this is not the situation of Mr. "I can't remember how many houses I own" McCain, we are talking a single exclusion for a single family. I know of plenty of older folks that have been forced to sell or downsize, because of the property tax burden. I say you should not have to leave your home due to an oppressive property tax regime. The community get's good long term planning numbers, and tenants get stable costs. And the equation get's reset each time a new sales transaction taxes place. This is a functional subsidy, one that we actually GET Something Desireable from (in contrast to most subsidies). But I agree that:
"Again, I do not see that the form of home loan is the issue. I see the issue is as Dr. Michael Hudson notes: the switch from property taxes as the primary form of state/local/municipal government income thus freeing up more cash for loan service." You are absolutely correct in that regard.


"It would be far more productive to ban all private money for campaign purposes period."

Sure! More power to ya brother if you can find a way to get that one done (I totally agree with you there, it's the implementation that's difficult, not the solution). Didn't the Germans figure this out after Hitler? Think we might could learn from them?

And I really have to start using multi-quote

[charliebrown]

Re: gregor: ignoring energy - the hollow keynesian/austrian debate

Hmmm interesting thoughts. I will cogitate on this for a while, especially the ideas swirling around pre-destination being
a form of arrogance.
I believe that there is some small non-worldly part of us, that allows us to make a free decision. Free from the
chains of the bio-mechanics of our bodies. That small piece is what gives us accountability. Otherwise if we
are robots, there is no sin.